Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:7876 Court No. - 11 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12980 of 2024 Applicant :- Vaheedan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Amar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dinesh Kr. Chaudhary Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J. Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record. Heard Sri Amar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sunny Pratap Singh, learned AGA for the State and Sri Dinesh Kr. Chaudhary, who has appeared on behalf of the informant/compalinant. The present applicant is in jail since 11.11.2024, in case crime no. 244 of 2024, under Sections 85, 108, 115(2) of BNS at Police Station Kotwali Nagar District Balrampur. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the present applicant has been falsely implicated as she has not committed any offence as alleged. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned FIR, whereby, the allegation of demanding dowry and torture has been levelled against the entire family of the husband of the victim (since deceased) to be more precise, husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, three Nanands and one Devar have been made accused persons. However, after completion of the investigation chargesheet has been filed only against the present applicant who is mother-in-law and the husband, under Sections 85, 108 and 115(2) of BNS inasmuch as the allegation of demanding dowry could not be established. The cause of that is asphyxia due to ante-mortem hanging. The victim (since deceased) received seven ante-mortem injuries, and two more injuries are literature mark around the neck area. The learned counsel for the applicant has stated that since the evidence regarding demanding dowry could not be found, therefore, such allegation may not be read against the present applicant as she never demanded any dowry from her daughter- in-law, (since deceased) or her family members. Her relation with her daughter-in-law was good. She had nothing to do with the family affairs of her son or wife (since deceased). There might be some trivial dispute between husband and wife, but she is not aware of such dispute and on account of such dispute, the victim (since deceased) might have received such injuries. Learned counsel for the applicant has shown annexure nos. 11 and 12 to show that there were some more reasons of dispute between husband and wife, and that reasons are related to the affair of the victim with another person, however, such fact maybe tested during the course of the trial. The present applicant is a lady, therefore, she may be given the benefit of Section 480 BNSS. Further, there is no previous criminal history of the applicant. The charge-sheet has been filed. The learned counsel has further submitted that if the applicant is released on bail, she shall shall cooperate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail. Further, the applicant shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order, the applicant may be enlarged on bail. Learned AGA for the State and the learned counsel for the informant have also opposed the bail application but could not dispute the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant. Without entering into merits of the issue, considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties; contents and allegations of the FIR and the fact that the present applicant is languishing in jail since 11.11.2024; and undertaking of the applicant that she shall co-operate in the trial proceedings properly, the fact that she being a lady she may be given the benefit of Section 480 BNSS, I am of the view that the present applicant may be released on bail. 6. Let the present applicant (Vaheedan) be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on her furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through her counsel. In case of her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against her under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against her, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against her in accordance with law. It is made clear that since the present applicant has been granted bail considering the fact that she is a lady and no specific role has been attributed to the present applicant and she being a lady is given the benefit of Section 437 Cr.P.C., therefore, the parity of this order may not be claimed by the other co-accused persons. In view of the aforesaid terms, the bail application is allowed. Order Date :- 6.2.2025 Anurag Digitally signed by :- ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench